dismissedOCT182024_03B52032024-10-18 · combined · Texas Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner proposed to operate a business training and consulting business related to the information technology industry.
Field: business training and consulting (IT industry) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's evidence reflected his own experience and was insufficient to show how his proposed endeavor to operate a business training and consulting business would broadly impact business at a level commensurate with national importance, or have substantial positive economic effects or significant potential to employ U.S. workers.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake,"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“insufficient to show how his proposed endeavor ... would broadly impact business at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner, however, has not stated any new facts as is required for a motion to reopen”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the AAO found the Petitioner submitted no new facts (only resubmitted prior evidence) and failed to identify any specific legal or factual error in the prior decision's national-importance analysis, so the motions were dismissed without reaching prongs 2 or 3.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers